Almost 20 years after the end of the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the debates on how to deal with the past in Serbia are still ongoing. From the very start the international community has put major emphasis on the criminal prosecution and conviction of the persons mostly responsible for the war crimes in the region, both by establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia and encouraging national prosecutions. In the discussions about transitional justice in the region, little if any attention has been paid to the victimisation of the population in Serbia and repairing the harm incurred during and after the armed conflict. Moreover, the views and expectations of the local population have hardly been the object of any scientific studies. The purpose of this article is to report about the opinions of the population in Serbia in relation to reparation for victims, by drawing on the main findings of a quantitative survey conducted in the country in 2007. It highlights the importance of paying attention to the population’s needs and, in particular, material and non-material forms of reparation.
BrymanA (2008) Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
Buckley-ZistelSSchäferS (eds) (forthcoming) Memorials in Times of Transition, Series on Transitional Justice. Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland: Intersentia Publishers.
3.
De FeyterKParmentierSBossuytM (eds) (2005) Out of the Ashes. Reparation for Victims of Gross and Systematic Human Rights Violations. Antwerp/Oxford: Intersentia Publishers.
4.
DeGreiff P (ed). (2006) The Handbook of Reparations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
Du PlessisMPetéS (eds) (2007) Repairing the Past? International Perspectives on Reparations for Gross Human Rights Abuses, Volume 1 of the Series on Transitional Justice. Antwerp/Oxford: Intersentia Publishers.
6.
FattahE (2000) Vital role of victimology in the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into society. In: IitsukaHFindlay-DebeckR (eds) Resource Material Series, No. 56 (pp.71–86), 112th UNAFEI International Training Course. Tokyo: United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI).
7.
FridayPHartmanJLordV (2007) Batterers and the battered: Role reversals in domestic violence. In: Annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, Georgia, November2007.
8.
International Centre for Transitional Justice (2004) Iraqi Voices: Attitudes towards Transitional Justice and Social Reconstruction. Berkeley, CA: Human Rights Centre, University of California; Berkeley, CA/New York: ICTJ.
9.
International Centre for Transitional Justice (2006) Colombian Perceptions and Opinions on Justice, Truth, Reparations, and Reconciliation. New York: ICTJ.
10.
International Centre for Transitional Justice (2007) When the War Ends: A Population Based Survey of Attitudes about Peace, Justice, and Social Reconstruction in Northern Uganda. Berkeley, CA: Human Rights Centre, University of California; Berkeley, CA/New York: ICTJ.
11.
JonesNParmentierSWeitekampE (2012) Dealing with international crimes in post-war Bosnia: Looking through the lens of the affected population. European Journal of Criminology (Special Issue on Atrocity Crimes and Transitional Justice) 9(5): 553–564.
12.
KizaERathgeberCRohneH-C (2006) Victims of War: An Empirical Study on War-Victimisation and Victims’ Attitudes towards Addressing Atrocities. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition online. Available at: http://www.his-online.de/fileadmin/verlag/pdf/978-3-936096-73-6.pdf (accessed 5 November 2013).
13.
McEvoyKMcGregorL (2008) Transitional justice from below: An agenda for research, policy and praxis. In: McEvoyKMcGregorL (eds) Transitional Justice from Below: Grassroots Activism and the Struggle for Change. London/Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp.1–14.
14.
ParmentierS (2003) Global justice in the aftermath of mass violence. The role of the International Criminal Court in dealing with political crimes. International Annals of Criminology41(1–2): 203–224.
15.
ParmentierSValiñasMWeitekampE (2009) How to repair the harm after violent conflict in Bosnia? Results of a population-based survey. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights27(1): 27–44.
16.
ParmentierSValiñasMWeitekampE (2010) How to restore justice in Serbia? A closer look at peoples’ opinions about postwar reconciliation. In: RotheDMullinsC (eds) Crimes of State: Current Perspectives. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp.262–274.
17.
ParmentierSWeitekampE (2013) Punishing perpetrators or seeking truth for victims: What does the population in Serbia think about dealing with war crimes?International Criminal Law Review (Special Issue on International Criminal Justice) 13: 43–62.
18.
RomboutsHParmentierS (2009) The International Criminal Court and its trust fund are coming of age: Towards a process approach for the reparation of victims, International Review of Victimology (Special Issue on Victim Reparation and the International Criminal Court, edited byWemmersJ-A) 16(2): 149–182.
19.
SheltonD (2005) The United Nations principles and guidelines on reparations: Context and contents. In: De FeyterKParmentierSBossuytM (eds) Out of the Ashes. Reparation for Victims of Gross and Systematic Human Rights Violations. Antwerp/Oxford: Intersentia Publishers, pp.11–33.
20.
SilberLLittleA (1996) The Death of Yugoslavia. Revised edition. London: Penguin Books.
21.
United Nations, General Assembly (2005) Basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law. A/C.3/60/L.24, 24October 2005.
22.
ValiñasMParmentierSWeitekampE (2008) Survey ‘restoring justice in Serbia’. Preliminary Report, Faculty of Law, Leuven Institute of Criminology, Leuven, 2008.
23.
ValiñasMParmentierSWeitekampE (2009) ‘Restoring Justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina’. Results of a population-based survey. Working Paper 31. Leuven: Centre for Global Governance Studies. Available at: www.globalgovernancestudies.eu (accessed 1 October 2010).
